================================================== =======\

Jon,

Thanks.

This aptly illustrates the problem. Many are not comprehending what they'e reading. It must be like JC with the high IQ says. ;)

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan...
Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon...

Gas is already past this increase and we can expect about another $1/gal every couple years. Clinton hasn't been in office for nearly 8 years. :LOL:

It's a new world. We'd better have far more government control in the future and far less corporate control. Especially fossil fuel mega-corporations where we can't even vote public policy. :eek:

Imagine, "I'm from the corporation and I'm here to help you". Right. :rolleyes:



...

...

:LOL:

First the killer temperatures due to extra warm weather ...and now this on top of it:

( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491206/?GT1=10450 )

Criminy... :CRY:

...

Bring WHAT out, that the planet is cycling through a climate change? This has been happening ever since the Earth was the Earth. What Gore is all about is pinning it on humans. This is absolute folly. And the Ignobel peace prize is BS. Its a political tool. Arafat???? Carter???!!!! Now Gore????!!!

I will tell you deserves a peace prize. Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, like that would have ever happened. Go ahead, support this stupid idea. And kiss your non-catalytic, gas guzzling Cobra goodbye.

Sorry, your post count indicates you are new here. So I will refrain from calling you an fool.

Mike

PS: IS it me or what?? Why is it as we get close to elections we start seeing this liberal crap in here? (low count, liberal posting bs)

Wes, post your source.

Mike

Hey Mike---we're in lounge, so you can call me what you'd like if you're into that. We'll disagree on this one, probably most politics actually, though I did read your posted link.

Great cobra forum, especially for us new guys. And I won't be posting that much since mostly I need to read what others say...you know...use the search and post an occasional question.

Tom

Tom

Tom,
here you go. this has been hashed on this site soooo much. Coming from your illogical description of 2+2=5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_plus_two_makes_five

I am not sure this is worth the effort of cutting and pasting
www.junkscience.com
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

for your viewing pleasure
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

is Stossel mainstream media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o

ok I can't resist. For those who don't like clicking links.

"The phrase "two plus two makes five" (or "2 + 2 = 5") is sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda."

quite poignant, considering this discussion, or any discussion for that matter, on the validity of Gore's ideals

Hey JT...thanks for the wikipedia link. I had no idea, but actually my signature is different...small detail. It reminded me of my econ class days or math days when profs would put up things that sounded just like that. I thought it was just funny for that reason. Anyway, you guys get pretty hot in these discussions...as if one more link will be that knock out blow. As for me, I prefer the quote by Thomas Jefferson in his 1st inaugural speech..."every difference in opinion is not a difference in principle." And there are clearly differences in opinion on this topic. Personally I think it's worth thinking about and figuring out---won't be me, I'm not that scientist. But I appreciate the work on all sides of the discussion. Tom

I am not sure what the differences you specified are, so you might be interested to consider, using the same logic, the fact that 2+2 for very large numbers of 2, ie. greater then 2.75, would actually be 6. But then again, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is, isn't it?

Just calling a spade a spade.

one more link will be that final blow? laughable. why is it that so many will choose ignorance to a genuine education, oh wait that's Marxism for ya. del. Each one of my links are nothing more than pointing out the hypocrisies of which the masses hold no accountability.

Personally, I like this quote of Jefferson's;

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

I know you would never be persuaded. You can't. But for someone who might be reading this thread, I will leave it up to them to determine what they want to understand.

cute...you mean it depends on what "is" is, *doesn't* it.

But to your confusion on the difference...

One is "sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement" (news to me...never heard the wikipedia version) and mine is a just spoof on somethings I always found challenging in class. Stuff that seemed illogical but which was proved and all that. Probably just me, but I found it funny. That's not really that hard to understand.

Tom

I was looking at the plot of temperature and CO2, (thanks JT) and I was thinking the same thing. What would they look like laid on top of each other? Also, lets look at smaller time scales since these enormous scales make it difficult to resolve time dependancies. It was good to see that one of those scientists did just that. Because then one can see the true relationship...temperature LEADS CO2. This is the fundamental tenent that the religion of global warming is based upon (manmade CO2 is causing the temperature to rise). But CO2 is FOLLOWING temperature rises (always, even in today's era). So, Wes, Tom, what do you read into that??

Mike

Oddly enough...this is as the debate should be and a good point if as you say. Perhaps it will color the real debate.

My point is easier that all this...and probably shared by many...there is a credible argument made that CO2 is a serious problem (and the fixes proposed in the movie aren't even very draconian.) Imo, the evidence that the issue is ignorable and should be ignored isn't enough to warrant not taking some action. Perhaps the temp leading CO2 will be the breakthrough that ends the discussion. It's an interesting idea.

Tom

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...shcn/ushcn.jsp

Interesting site.

good article: http://www.businessandmedia.org/comm...822130511.aspx


Mike

Here ya' go.....

The lesson? It is difficult to predict the hurricane activity. Bill Grey used his hypotheses about decadal cycles. Advocates of the global warming theory have used their universally dark picture of the future to make similar predictions. All of them were spectacularly wrong. I don't know whether the hurricane science can ever become predictive, reliable, and quantitative, but it is clear that their field is not yet there now.

You should also notice how the discussions about possible links between the hurricanes and the CO2 emissions dramatically evaporated. Whenever record cold temperatures are broken somewhere, the global warming apologists immediately tell you that you are not allowed to talk about them because it is just weather.

Last year when we happened to see many hurricanes which - you might think - are also just weather, they would be speculating about the links between the hurricane intensity and the CO2 emissions. Some of the slightly more honest ones wouldn't directly argue that these two things are linked because there is clearly no evidence - but they still wanted you to think about this possible link.

That's the most efficient way to create myths: if you induce the atmosphere in which the laymen start to invent these irrational relationships themselves, you're the winner.

In 2006, with the hurricane rate plummeting by 70 percent from 2005, they no longer invite you to think about such links because such a reasoning could have the opposite effect than they want: it could lead to you think that our activity is actually making things safer with time instead of more dangerous because the hurricanes are disappearing as we pump record amounts of CO2 into air. Needless to say, neither of these two conclusions can be supported by any existing statistically significant data or reliable theories.

The global warming theory with its possible impact on the hurricanes or anything else you can think about is just a new example of an old, pre-historical form of religion. Ten thousand years ago, people would be afraid of many things and they would invent irrational links between them and gods who were responsible for them but they didn't yet know how to look at all these phenomena without bias, how to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and how make scientifically justifiable conclusions.

Unfortunately, Marx was qualitatively right in this case: the history resembles a spiral. The believers in these very primitive forms of religion have the same logic as their counterparts who lived 10,000 years ago but they have much more powerful tools to cause damage which could be a reason to be concerned.

And that's the memo.

Posted by Lumo, and I don't know if that's his first or last name.

More from Lumo....I like this guy.



If you compare the predictions about the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with reality as of August 23rd, 2006, you will see an incredible example of a breathtaking bias in the media - a good toy model of the media's manipulation with the climate in general.

Let us start with the predictions.

In March 2006, USA Today (and Reuters) told their readers that the "2006 hurricane season could be worse than the 2005". To "prove" their point, they quoted a United Nations bureaucrat:


"We have reason to fear that 2006 could be as bad as 2005," Jan Egeland, the undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs who coordinates U.N. emergency relief, told Reuters last week.
This is apparently what they call scientific evidence. The same prediction has been repeated in virtually all media you can imagine. For example, you could read it in the Insurance Journal. Some predictions relied on experts, namely Dr. William Gray from Colorado. For example, he said:

"Information obtained through November 2005 indicates that the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season will be much more active than the average 1950-2000 season. We estimate that 2006 will have about 9 hurricanes (average is 5.9), 17 named storms (average is 9.6), 85 named storm days (average is 49.1), 45 hurricane days (average is 24.5), 5 intense (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.3) and 13 intense hurricane days (average is 5.0)."
Trust me that there has been a lot of this stuff - BBC, CNN, MSNBC, New Scientist, NPR - together with theories that the hurricanes are caused by global warming and all this propaganda we have seen millions of times. Finally, we can get to the actual data:

2005 Atlantic hurricane season
2006 Atlantic hurricane season
By August 23rd, 2005, we had seen 12 storms. They started with the letters A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,10,J,K. Five of them have been hurricanes. Emily and Katrina were category 5 hurricanes and Dennis was a category 4 hurricane - still a strong major hurricane.

By August 23rd, 2006, we have seen 4 storms: Alberto, Beryl, Chris, Debby. Neither of them has been a hurricane - not even a small hurricane. Debby is the first one that at least has a chance to become a minimal hurricane on Sunday or so - but be sure that it won't become one. 2006 is not only milder than 2005 but also than 2004, 2003, and most other years. Right now, in the middle of the season, 2006 is below the average.

December 2006 update: Indeed, it seems that the number of tropical storms (9) as well as hurricanes (5) as well as (minimal) major hurricanes (2) will stay below the average of 1950-2000. The season officially ended at the end of November. The absence of any tropical storms from the early October can be partially explained by a new El Nino.

The first tropical storm that will become a hurricane, Ernesto, will only form 4 days after this posting is completed. It will be downgraded back to a tropical storm in a day.

So far, the predictions for the storms in 2006 have been wrong more than three-fold. The hurricane predictions have so far been infinitely wrong. Let me now assume that the rest of the hurricane season won't change the situation qualitatively. What happens when it is almost obvious that the doomsaying predictions will be dramatically falsified? Well, no one will tell you that the alarmist predictions were just a piece of crap. The USA Today won't publish any errata. And no one, except for The Reference Frame, will propose that something should be changed about the hurricane science because of this dramatic failure.

William Gray and Philip Klotzbach started with a modest reduction of their prediction for this year at the beginning of August. But they still predicted an above-the-average season. Instead of 9 hurricanes, they now predict 7 hurricanes while the actual number so far is zero. Why didn't they just say that their prediction was wrong so that they could lower the prediction to a realistic number of 4-5 hurricanes instead of 7 hurricanes? Isn't scientific dishonesty a part of the answer?

Note added later: On September 1st, 7 will be indeed lowered to 5.


Note that William Gray is one of the good guys - a kind of "skeptic" who is himself under a severe attack of the groupthink of his colleagues. Despite his strangely slow correction of his radical prediction, he at least realizes that the hurricane variation is caused predominantly by natural factors - unlike people like James Elsner...

What does everyone do if it turns out that 2006 is going to be not only below the average but clearly below the average?

Your guess is correct: nothing will happen at all. It is OK to scare people. It is OK to fill newspapers with a lot of nonsense and junk science as long as it is politically correct. No corrective measures are necessary, except for corrections of politically incorrect scientific conclusions that simply can't be tolerated. As far as the climate goes, we don't live in a scientific world in which falsified predictions would have some consequences. We're not learning anything from the errors.

And remember that it has only been a few months since these predictions that will probably be wrong. After a few months, no one cares. Most predictions that the climate scientists are producing talk about years like 2050. These charlatans are safe: permanently safe.

Every person with common sense could predict that 2006 won't be as bad as 2005 simply because the hurricanes are random phenomena, and because 2005 was far worse than the average, it is almost guaranteed that 2006 would be much milder. Even if there were some correlation between natural climate trends (or even the human activity) on one side and the hurricanes on the other side, it is completely clear that these effects are negligible in comparison with the annual fluctuations.

The only exceptions - people who are not quite able to think like this - are the scientists who are actually paid for such predictions. They have already told us so much nonsense about the so-called "global warming" and all of its hypothetical consequences that they have started to believe this crap themselves. Of course that the real jerks are the politicians and the journalists-activists who are primarily responsible for misleading the public; but it couldn't work if the scientists did not invest their credentials into this dirty game. Many of the scientists are effectively employed as intellectual prostitutes indirectly paid by the far left charlatans.

Until the "experts" are fired or otherwise punished when their predictions fail so miserably - which can only happen if there is some real competition in their field - the world of the hurricane predictions won't have a chance to become a scientific world. And that's the memo.

OK, I found the data that Gore is using:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm (CO2)

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/tem...k/jouz_tem.htm (temperature)

And a analysis that uses it:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Their conclusion is that it cannot be determined (from the data) that the CO2 data leads or lags the temperature data. I agree. The temperature data has nowhere near the resolution that the CO2 data has. But it should be possible to "degrade" the CO2 data to the level of the temperature data. But still, the number of years represented by the core sampling reolution is problematic. Still, there are analyses indicating an 800 to 1000 year lag (in CO2). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13.

Go ahead and dump the data into excel for yourself. I did. Tom, I am sure you are a smart person. Don't let poiticians fool you.

Mike

Gore explained:
Al Gore is the most worthless,forget-able,complete waste of oxygen since Jimmy Carter.And there is the link:
How many times would Carters name have made it into the news(after his term)if he WASN'T linked with Habitat for Humanity?It almost like he's been doing penance for being the most limp-dicked excuse of a President to EVER occupy the oval office.And he wanted/wants his name associated with something other than being known as the biggest Joke in presidential history.

Now to Gore.If he didn't find something to "attach" himself to(global warming)he would just fade away as the VP of "blowjob Willie"and the guy who whined like a five year-old girl when he lost the 2000 election.And lets not forget his equally "wacked" wife-Tipper.Remember her campaign to get lyrics rated on albums?Watching Frank Zappa handing her ass to her on a platter in front of a Senate hearing was something i'll never forget.

Question for Tom: Do you think we can change the temperature of the earth?

Nice rant, but you missed the thread. It's played out.

Nice duck, but its not played out. Sounds to me like "the debates over". It is not. Bill is spot on (and dam funny too!!)

So, answer the thread with something other than "its played out" or move it on out.

Mike ;)